National Economic Panel



ESA National Economic Panel Polls





Got an Idea?

Author's Name: Frank Jotzo
Date: Thu 16 Feb 2023

Frank Jotzo

Professor Frank Jotzo

Frank Jotzo is Professor of environmental economics and climate change economics at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy, where he directs the Centre for Climate and Energy Policy. He is also Head of Energy with the ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions and director of the ANU Zero-Carbon Energy for Asia-Pacific grand challenge initiative. He has been a senior author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is joint editor-in-chief of the journal Climate Policy. He has advised national and state governments, international organisations and businesses.

Subject area expertise

Frank Jotzo’s research spans decarbonisation strategies, economics of energy transition, policy instruments for climate change and environment, political economy of policy choice and design, fiscal policy, technological change and international trade and investment. His research combines micro-economics with economy-wide modelling and cross-disciplinary perspectives on policy and technology.

Share this with your friends

Responses (1)

How economists would raise $20 billion per year

Poll 58

When panellests were asked to find an extra A$20 billion per year to fund government priorities like building nuclear submarines and responding to climate change, Australia’s top economists overwhelmingly back land tax, increased resource taxes, an attack on negative gearing and extending the scope of the goods and services tax.

Photo credit by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash


Efficiency picks: Tax windfall profits Introduce or increase land taxes (possibly with cut in stamp duty) Wind back deductions for negatively geared properties Equity picks: Wind back deductions for negatively geared properties Tax windfall profits Wind back superannuation tax concessions

Efficiency comments: There are many ways to raise more tax revenue efficiently, especially by cutting tax concessions; resource taxation also has big gaps. Not on the list here is an important unused option: carbon pricing that raises revenue. If Australia fully taxed emissions at $100/tCO2-equivalent then the revenue would be around $15 billion per year from electricity, $18b per year from industry and stationary industry, and $9 billion per year from transport. Reference points: EU emissions trading now nearly $150/t with auctioning revenue greater than 30b euros per year; Australia's planned maximum price in the safeguard mechanism is $75 per tonne, but there is no plan to create any fiscal revenue. Equity comments: Many of Australia's tax concessions predominantly benefit high income earners and/or relatively wealthy people. In the interest of equity and also efficiency they should be reduced or eliminated.